you will have as i said people who are directly involved in helping to establish policy or running for example the nsa or cybercommand and so on getting the other two dudes as these issues and going through some scenarios. like i said that will be at the end of the month at "the washington post." >> host: as i mentioned robert o'harrow's series at "the washington post" is linked to our side at site at c-span.org/communicators. if you would like to read it for yourself and charlie miller is computer security researcher and twitter employee, also known as a good guy hacker. he has been joining us from st. louis. mr. o'harrow thank you for being on on the camp -- "the communicators." >> guest: thanks for having me.

>> you can either embrace the kind of approach that congress woman wilson has embraced. she signed a pledge to support the cut, cap and balance program. that is a tea party approach to

balancing the budget. it has no new revenues for even the wealthiest of americans and is so draconian that it would require deep cuts in social security and medicare over time. we can embrace a balanced approach. that is what i support. i think we can go back to the kind of tax rates we had under the clinton administration when those upper income earners were doing well and the entire economy was growing. we are going to have to make some tough choices and a balanced approach is the only approach i believe will get us there. >> heather, your rebuttal? >> it's amazing to me congressman heinrich that you can stand here having voted for a trillion dollar deficits for the last four years, the largest debt increase in american history and say that we have to control spending. you have done nothing to control spending over the last four years and with respect to cut gap and balance it's amazing to me also this idea of cutting wasteful spending, capping the ability of congress to spend money we don't have and

balancing the budget is extreme. i think it would force congress to set priorities and stop funding things like solyndra and prioritize things like social security, medicare and education and that is why i support a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. e. republican congressman robert dold and democratic challenger brad schneider are in a tight race for the tenth congressional district. it covers an area along part of michigan in the northern chicago severs. representative dold is running for a second term and brad schneider is the founder of the management controlling firm. the two candidates recently sat down for a debate, courtesy of chicago's wttw tv.

>> the tenth congressional district has one of the most expensive congressional races in the country. as democrats try to take control for the first time in more than three years. they are aided by the recent remap of the district which makes it the most democratic congressional district in the country held by republican. the newly drawn tenth congressional district runs along made lake michigan and the wisconsin border and includes northern suburbs such as waukegan buffalo road and glen glen cove. a couple of quick notes before we began. this form is being streamed live on our web site wttw.com and there you can join a live chat. if you have a question for the candidates you can ask us there and we may view it on the air. also a note about her format tonight. this is not a formal debate. the candidates will not give opening or closing statements. their answers will not be timed and they will not necessarily be asked the same questions.

i will use fairness as my guide to move this discussion along and we asked the candidates to stay on-topic and not give campaign speeches. joining us in the order they appear on the ballot are brad schneider the democrat from deerfield. is a management consultant to risk consulting firm in 2000. congressman robert dold the republican from kenilworth who was elected as a representative 2010. he served as an investment counsel for the u.s. government reform committee. gentlemen, welcome. it's good to have you here. gentleman you are now both on record as saying you would be open to raising revenue as part of plan to balance the budget and congressman's dold your opponent says as a general proposition he supports 70% and cuts versus 30% in new revenues. what percentage breakdowns would you support? dold: i'm not so sure i have a percentage breakdown.

what i've done his work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and the only bipartisan budget that has come to the florida generation and frankly i think that is what we need to be talking about. need to be talking about how we can get folks together republicans and democrats alike running an organization i know that the only successful organizations are those that come together and actually solve problems and have some sort of compromise. >> moderator: you were asked if you would accept a 1 dollar increase for $10 in cuts and you said yes. somewhere between that and 70/30 just as a general proposition. dold: what i did was take a framework with jim cooper and others on the democratic side of the island laid out a broad framework that would put revenues on the table and spending cuts. i don't want to say that we would say it's got to be this or that simply because we don't know what the proposals are going to be. what i do know is we face a fiscal cliff is right around the

corner and the only way i think we are going to resolve these problems is by working together as i have done in the last 22 months. >> moderator: brad schneider how to chew come up with a 70/30 split? schneider: i don't think there's an absolute number but if you look at what we have had in past congress, congress has had a challenge and we have a ryan planned that not once but twice my opponent voted for that continues to give additional benefits and cuts to the most fortunate americans additional subsidies to large oil companies and companies shipping jobs overseas and to pay for that, it is asking seniors to take medicare and the medicare guarantee and turn it into a voucher which will cost seniors $6400 more year and taking students and asking them to pay more for student loans and cutting pell grants. sticking middle-class families and putting an average increase on their taxes by at least $1300. >> moderator: what i'm hearing you say is a general sense of fairness the 70/30. congressman two years ago before you are elected to congress he

signed a pledge for grover norquist's americans for tax reform to never raise taxes but you would consider deficit reduction solutions that would include increased revenue. why the change? subor it talks about if you're going to lower rates or raise rates, you have to lower them and another and i don't believe necessary raising taxes is necessarily the answer. as my opponent -- >> moderator: you are increasing revenue. why the change? told -- dold: what i do know is you have to work together to get the solution and so what i am looking to try to do us all these big problems and so i have come forward with an a an idea and a plan and certainly want to focus on my main street jobs agenda as we look at more more people out of work today than we want to see. we have 23 million americans that are out of work or unemployed. my opponent is still yet to come up with a plan. he has been running for 17 months and still no plan. what we do have is a planned to

just criticize me for coming up with a plan. >> moderator: one of the subtext of a the question i was asking congressman some would say it's pretty reasonable in terms of just particularly representing a district like the 10. dold: and that is what i've done. every analysis that has been been done as ranking as one one of us independent bipartisan members in the united states congress and that is where i think we have had thoughtful and independent leadership in the tenth district for the last 30 odd years and that is exactly what i will continue to do and that is what i told the tenth district i would be that's awful independent leader and that is exactly what i've done. >> moderator: you have been on the show twice before and you said you were a quote progressive. you have been describing yourself as a moderate. schneider: what i describe myself on this show is progressive on social values and the idea that women should have a right to make their own choices about their own bodies. i'm 100% supportive of women's

rights, the right of a woman to make her own choice. on equality i support marriage equality and the opportunity for everyone to be able to have secure planet whether they are straight or or. i believe we should have repeal repealed "don't ask don't tell" and these are real differences between me and my opponent who was not 100% pro-choice who has voted to, or wanted to delay the repeal of "don't ask don't tell." >> moderator: you raise a series of important things. what was the response from congressman's dold about that? sub41st of all i am pro-choice and spoke out about the funding of planned parenthood so to say that i'm anything but that is disingenuous. >> moderator: you have to look at the vote. you voted for planned parenthood and you voted for small businesses that provided women health care plans that offered them -- >> moderator: those response -- make your response

to those to? dold: what i did vote to do is fund the government so if you remember earlier on in this term we had to actually fund the government to keep the doors open so what i did want to do is make sure seniors got their social security checks to make sure women and women in uniform putting their lives on the line were able to feed their families and to make sure the government was being run but the bill he is talking about i stood up on the house floor and was the only republican to speak out to say we need to make sure planned parenthood keeps its funding and so to suggest otherwise -- take a look at the daily herald. daily herald said these attempts to try to blatantly misrepresent my record are troubling. schneider: you voted against the amendment but the next day you voted for the bill that would defund planned parenthood. it every democrat voted against and did not become law and the government did not shut down. >> moderator: gentlemen let me jump ahead to a topic i was

thinking about taking up a little later but since it's on the table congressman's dold your opponent says that on the 20 most important votes he did not break with your leaders even want once and not let the tea party to pull congress to the friends. what is your response to that? dold: my response is that was 24 votes if "the washington post" is correct. 24 this was passed with the majority and 10 of those votes danny hoyer voted with but do you know what's interesting about those votes? not a single vote talks about health care or the environment and not a single vote talks about transportation infrastructure. not a single one of those votes were dealing with education or a single one on gun control. all things that i think are important to people in the tenth district and i think are critical votes get my opponent doesn't want to talk about it. schneider: if you look at the record this congress which is the most ineffective congress we have had in our lifetime you voted on the ryan plan that takes medicare and turns it into a voucher program. he voted with congress over 200

times against our environment and over 28 times against obamacare. he has voted with them on issue after issue on every -- >> moderator: congressman's dold you voted against obamacare. why? dold: if we look at the affordable care act, we can agree there things are things that are very -- i think we want to call it by its name and frankly i don't want to offend somebody that might want to call it something else but the long and short of it is i think we have 21 new taxes on this. the estimates in terms of the cost estimates on the new set of 10 years doubled so this is going to be enormously troubling. schneider: it did not double. dold: it did her career talking about a two year plan so i think this is why it's troubling because small businesses are looking at how can i be able to in essence pay the penalty and tell people they are on their own for health insurance? as someone who runs a business and someone who has deal with 100 employees from extended family, to tell them that they

are going to be on their own for health insurance, i can think a few things that would be more troubling are terrifying for them than to tell and them they are on their own. schneider: i managed a life insurance company for seven years. every year when we met with the health insurance agent they came and told us we had a double-digit double-digit increase in the rates. over the course the time that a doubling in our premiums for korea to make a choice my partner and i to put more burden on our employees are take more burden on ourselves. the affordable care act is not perfect but it takes a step in the right direction, taking us from a system that currently was based on volume, emergency care that moves us to a system that is much better based on quality and outcomes. we are spending 1.5 times on health care versus other countries and we are not getting better outcomes. >> moderator: a quick response from the commerce one and then i want to go to a question from one of our viewers. dold: affordable care act does not address cost or quality. we can agree we don't want to

deny someone with the preexisting condition access to insurance but it didn't address medical malpractice reform and doesn't allow the same tax breaks as businesses and doesn't allow a family to purchase a plan that is better for them anywhere in the country. schneider: the focus is on quality and preventive care and well karen is taking us in the right direction. i don't say it's perfect. we need to work as we implement it. dold: it takes and $9 million out of medicare 12 -- >> moderator: last week the defense of marriage act was struck down by the courts. do you support this line do believe to believe marriages only between a man and a woman? dold: i've been clear from the beginning of my campaign that i believe -- life is hard, having a career's heart and having someone to be standing by your side in tough times but also in good times. if two people want to commit to a lifetime, god love them.

>> moderator: brad schneider? schneider: i don't want to prevent to loving individuals from having a life together. one of the reasons why i supported a piece of legislation that would allow domestic partners who have health benefits and be able to be on their partner's health benefits and i've come forward with my party to say i believe civil union should be acceptable so we want to make sure they have these rights but i do believe marriage is between a man and a woman. dold: this as two distinct classes of people and people that want to make this commitment -- >> moderator: congressman's dold do you think that is reflected in your district as a moderate? sublive vivek is a moderate district and it's a thoughtful dependent -- independent district. i know the majority of my district supports marriage equality and a majority the majority of this country supports the nondiscrimination act yet to mr. dold opposed that. >> moderator: let's go to question from our on line chat

and it comes from sam. the question is mr. schneider like presidential candidates you have refused to release tax returns. why is that? congressman's dold do you believe governor romney should release his returns class let's start with mr. schneider. schneider: everything that voters want to know about my financial position, what i is have learned and owned and our kids savings accounts are included on a report i filed with the house. that it's been reported in the papers as well. what i said is my wife has her own career. she is a professional and she has employees who work for her and she has competitors. she is not running for congress. my wife has a right to a certain degree of privacy and everything you want to know about my finances are on the report. >> moderator: they are entitled to transparency as a candidate. dold: let me say i've released my returns. my wife is on there as well and i think the voters to have a right to transparency here and

frankly the fact that we don't know what was paid in those taxes and we don't don't know what deductions were taken we don't know if taxes were paid on domestic employees. we don't know any of those types of things on these returns and obviously we know from the past history that these are some of the things that voters have wanted to know. >> moderator: those are all legitimate or arguably legitimate. let me follow up with that question. do you think mitt romney should release his tax records? dold: i do. schneider: i think this is an issue of trying to avoid the real challenges we face as a country. we need to have a conversation focusing on jobs and our education system back to leading the world, focusing on making sure we bring manufacturing and health care. >> moderator: let's open the conversation with this question in congressman's dold do you believe the tax cuts for the wealthy stimulate the economy? dold: i believe in keeping tax rates low will be helpful.

president obama 2010 said in a fragile economy we should not be raising rates. that is when the economy was growing at 3.5%. the economy today is growing at 1.5% and they had to readjust it to 1.3%. as my opponent and previous debate how raising taxes would help more people get employed and how would help small businesses that are struggling right now to make ends meet. how it would help them hire that next individual and frankly there was no response. >> moderator: mr. schneider do you believe in -- schneider: we should keep tax rates for all income earners under 250,000 with there but we have a balance -- imbalance. by raising the tax rates going back to the tax rates of the 1990s and the clinton era where we have growing economy paying 23 million jobs the congressional budget office looked at the plan to go back to 1990 rates. they said it would reduce our net over 10 years by $950 billion almost a trillion

dollars and that's a significant step bringing balance back to our budget is fiscally. we in the senate of course lowered our credit rating. it was because her congress was unwilling to address the challenges we face. we can't continue to keep giving the most fortunate americans more and more tax cuts asking middle-class families to pay more and expect to address the challenges to pass on to her children a future that her parents gave to us. >> moderator: what to get to the observation that the tax policy -- he see no connection between lower taxes for the very wealthy and a vibrant robust economy. dold: let me just say my opponent has says it has been clear on this and has been premised. my opponent says he wants all the rates to rise and he said it right here on the show with you use you phil that he wants the taxes to go up. schneider: i could've been more artful.

>> moderator: what did you say before? schneider: as i stand with the president. dold: he said it was an artful yet it on his webpage it was on a specifically and then it change. schneider: we shouldn't raise taxes on middle class families -- in 1999 we have balanced budget and projections to pay down our debt. we had to push tax cuts into unfounded wars and an unfunded prescription drug in effect which was the first unfunded program and a history and a failure of oversight in the financial system. >> moderator: congressman and then i have some more questions. dold: brad has no plan. i've laid out a clear vision for how we get people back to work. schneider: that's just not true. >> moderator: i have to interrupt. mr. schneider? it sounds like investing means a lot of spending. gentlemen which of these

personal income tax of taxed at the auctions would you eliminate and give me some short answers. congressman's dold mortgage interest? dold: i would like to keep it. schneider: i would like to keep it but i think they can we can cap upon higher income. for example we need to make sure we continue to support housing. >> moderator: how about capital gains? dold: i would support capital gains back to the 1990s under clinton. schneider: i would like to keep the capitol gains rates low. having said that we talk about a grand scheme are grand plan or something working across the isle isle that is something that should be on the table. >> moderator: charitable directions? should they stay or should they go? schneider: one of the things it makes us stronger as a nation as a is a strength of our communities ability. >> moderator: game one and loophole that you would like to close. schneider: the subsidies for oil companies.

dold: that is one i've supported. we have to eliminate the loopholes and lower the rates and make ourselves more globally competitive so comprehensive tax reform is certainly something i've supported and actually one of the things that i passed out of the house of representatives, my opponent talks about how this is the most unproductive congress get as a freshman i've been able to pass six pieces of legislation two of them signed into law by the president. this last week in session i was able to pass out of the house of representatives with overwhelming bipartisan support for global investment in american jobs at trying to focus on and we can get more investment back in our country to give more americans in the tenth district back to work. >> moderator: congressman would you raise to -- vote to raise the debt ceiling? schneider: i want to make sure we are reigning in the out-of-control spending so we are not borrowing for cents on every dollar and not burdening my children, brats and yours in the viewing audience with a mountain of debt that they will

not -- >> moderator: would you vote to raise the debt ceiling? schneider: we need to do it in a responsible and what we have seen in this congress, he continues to get the benefits to those who have the most in putting a burden on those who are struggling the most. take medicare guaranty and turning into a voucher program and put an increased burden on students does not address our challenges. >> moderator: since you raise the issue, congressman what role should private insurance play in the reformation of medicare? dold: one of the things i support in a bipartisan plan is the idea that first of all medicare as we know it right now has to remain so that option would be available. what i have supported is a premium support model and again i think this is important as we give seniors options and choice over where the private system can come in and offer plans that would be a gatekeeper by medicare. >> moderator: brad schneider?

schneider: i don't believe in a voucher plan. this plan is unsustainable. aarp looked at it and said it would hurt medicare. the cbo looked at it and said it would cost seniors $6400 more in the reason is because it's a rate that is lower than the rate of health care inflation is grown in the past and projected to groan the future. we can't simply take the cost of health care and transfer to our seniors. we need to move from a system of volume to a system of quality. >> moderator: would have a question from an on line chat from toby and his question is what aspect of social security would you change or fix given the quickly depleting trust fund? dold: with regard to medicare my opponent has no plan. he has been running for 17 months and has no plan. medicare is going bankrupt and i think we have an obligation to strengthen the social safety net which is why i'm willing to work across the out to make sure it's going to be there.

schneider: you voted against the medicare guaranteed twice. i'm going to take a page right of the daily herald says that you are tying to mislead the voters and demand market campaign. [inaudible] dold: my vision going forward is to make sure we are strengthening the safeties us -- safety net programs. social security is something i think, the social safety net program with to make sure is secure and it needs to be there for future generations and i think one of the things that certainly we have to do is work in a bipartisan fashion in order to deal with it. >> moderator: brad schneider quick response on social security? schneider: when social security passed a law -- we brought that down to 10%. need to make sure social security is there not just for the current generation of my generation but to our children's and their children to me to make sure social security provides that safety net so we continue to drive down the number of

seniors who are on the poverty line. we can do it in a way that forces them to choose between rent and medicine and forces them to choose between planning for future and having to give up everything they have save for. >> moderator: gentlemen we have to switch topics -- topics and let's talk about israel. both of you stand in firm solidarity with israel but can you name something that hasn't been helpful to peace in middle east? congressman dold. dold: honestly i can't think of something that they have done in recent memory that i think it's been detrimental but what i do know is that our ally in the state of israel and we need to make sure that we as a nation are standing shoulder-to-shoulder and there is no daylight between the united states and israel and we need to make sure the world knows an attack on israel is an attack on the united states. >> moderator: is there nothing that comes to mind that israel has done that you think is unhelpful to the middle east?

schneider: if there's going to be something that is unhelpful you have that behind closed doors. i've been advocating for a strong u.s. relationship going back to high school in 1970s. i've watched israel sit at the negotiating table look for a partner. i sat in 2000 when prime minister barak and president clinton tried to bring yasser arafat to a peace proposal that gives them virtually everything that they wanted and he walked away without making a single counter offer. nothing is perfect but to get the peace to the people who want peace and the palestinians need to come to the table. the united states provides a forum for israel and the palestinians to sit down and find that place where they can, find common ground but we need to have a two-state solution and we need to have that power state sitting next to in his --

israeli state. >> moderator: let's talk about, so many charges, some of them personal but brats schneider there've been charges that that you have embellished your business resume. what is your reaction to that? schneider: i'm proud of my business what. helping them plan for future to develop strategic plans and bring a next-generation helping expand and grow their business for success for themselves and their employees. it is that experience that i think gives me the perspective. understand why we have to simplify our tax code and understand what is going to take for business owners to look to the future with confidence invest in new products and hire new people and train them for the skills they need. >> moderator: according to reports you have taken on few paying ventures and you have a one-man consulting company and investment firm. is that, is that --

schneider: as i made the decision to enter this race i devoted a 100% of my time to this race. i got into this race. the value you assign that was the value i kept in the checking account to keep it open because all of my energies have gone into running for congress for the last year and a half. ..

dold: let me simply say my process he does not a business record because he was running for congress. he didn't have any clients are revenue in 2010. in 2010, i was running for congress against dan seals. so it's disingenuous yet again trying to -- schneider: that's not true. i did work in that come in 2010 as looking to buy a business. this is an example of you not understand entrepreneurship. dold: i understand it very, very well. schneider: you would understand when you're trying to build a business, trying to look for deals -- dold: in 2008? schneider: i work in 2008 2009 20. dold: you were a management consultant. you're trying to avoid the real reality. trendy what we should be focusing on is -- dold: it should be jobs and the economy. >> your pass herself off as a businessman. ivan businesses.

dold: thousands of people -- [talking over each other] >> moderator: you both major point. thank you. jobs are a key issue. there are other issues. the question i asked you say you support reason will gun laws. how about a federal ban on assault weapons? schneider: the assault weapons ban i think was not renewed because it was a thought it wasn't working. certainly i think we got to look at other ways to try to reduce gun violence. certainly i would work with mayors against illegal guns. we look at the gun violence in new york city and what they been able to do. it's sort a fantastic in terms of the results. certainly us or trying to make sure we close the gun show loopholes making sure we're looking at background checks, to make sure those happen more effectively and efficiently. and also pleased to say the online council on handgun violence will be giving me an award in november. schneider: this is again under the difference. i do believe in the assault

weapons ban. whizzing too much violence happen in our cities, in our communities. we need to reinstate the weapons ban that expired in 2004. we need to ban large-scale magazines allow someone to go to a theater and poll of 50 rounds rounds in a minute. this mixer cities more dangerous. you talk about much are not linked of the action behind. this is what you done in congress. when you go for the rhein plan when you vote against women's rights, when you vote against the environment -- dold: i didn't vote against women's right. i stood up for gun control. these are the things you don't think are important. [talking over each other] i think it's important to know that a just and up and go across the aisle work with talks on either side. i work with sandy gives. i've worked with barney frank and glenmore and work with congressman quickly encoded in lipinski and senator durbin. and some others on down the line. and you waxman.

>> moderator: brad schneider your reaction. schneider: i understand the discussion should have but i look at the votes you've made. i will keep going back to the rhein hundred other people in your party have the courage to stand up to the leadership in saint this right thing isn't good for middle-class, is a good for medicare isn't good for students and you voted against it. >> moderator: we have an online question from david. will you support comprehensive immigration reform? the dream act? drivers license for undocumented immigrants? congressman dold your reaction. dold: what i will say is in our nation we generally try to judge someone on what they've done. and so what i said as i do think it is a step in the right direction. we do need to write students and young people here who have no other country than our own. the opportunity to go to serve our country, to be able to step up and be able to go to school and be able to stay here. we need to provide an opportunity. i do think how granted

immigration reform is something we have to do. i would probably break it up as opposed to one shy to build into smaller bill so has a greater possibility of getting to and passing. schneider: we do need companies of immigration reform, and unfortunately, the republican party has blocked over and over again. it was president george bush that have the competence of immigration bill that the republican party would not even consider. we have 11 12 million people living in the status of the country are contribute your committees, working hard. we need to provide them a path to citizenship. without prejudicing or putting -- we need to make sure our borders are secure. and for young people who are brought here as little children, we need to make sure that their dreams and aspirations have a realistic chance of being realized so that they can come and contribute, again rather than being cast off. >> moderator: one minute left. just a 30-the second recapture like to leave voters with. i will begin with congressman

dold. dold: i've been ranked as one of the most independent bipartisan members in the united states congress. i'm proud of that record. frankly, take a look at the "chicago tribune"." the daily herald and their analysis of this and they said look, told is the clear choice but because riggleman able to bridge the political divide average across the aisle. to think for myself but i've done that for the last 22 months. being in front of come on issue issues, being a leader, a voice not just a vote, i trying to be fiscal conservative. survey my record stands up for the. i've been fighting for people in the 10th district 90 get people out of unemployed lines and back to work. schneider: in the last two years a congress that is the confrontation and conflict ahead of collaboration and compromise. they have fought every step of the way, on the key votes he has over and over again given not just a voice but the book. we need someone who is going to go to congress and work for the people. the sierra club look at mr. dold

to record look at my position they both give me their endorsement or i got the endorsement of the human rights campaign. the fraternal order of police, firefighters. they looked at this race look at my record and they gave me their endorsement. >> moderator: retched, congressman dold thanks both for being here. thanks for the city club in chicago for supporting this developer candidate forums this election season. >> if you missed any of the presidential debates, c-span's campaign 2012 debate of the provides online on-demand video of all three. go to c-span.org/debate. you can also visit our campaign 2012 website. here you can watch the latest events from the campaign trail with the presidential candidates and read what they're saying on

major issues. it's also your resource to many features including our social media section where you can see what the candidates, political reporters and other viewers are saying about the presidential race on sites like facebook and twitter. it's all that cspan.org/campaign2012. >> friends and family honored former senator george mcgovern at his human service friday in sioux falls, south dakota. nodakota. among the speakers were former senators tom daschle and gary hart. senator mcgovern died last week at the age of 90 at a hospice center in sioux falls. during his career, he led the opposition to the vietnam war it in the senate and again in 1972 democratic presidential nominee before losing to president richard nixon in the general election. this service runs about two hours. ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> jesus said i am the resurrection those who believe in me even though they die yet shall they live. and whoever lives and believes in me shall never die. i am alpha and omega the beginning and the end the first and the last. i died and behold, i am alive for evermore. and i hold the keys of -- because i live you shall live also. friends, we've gathered here to praise god and to witness to her faith as a celebrate the life of george mcgovern. we come together in grief acknowledging our human loss. and we ask that god would grant us grace, that in pain we might

find comfort, in sorrow hope. and in death resurrection. my name is pastor robert ruedebusch. i'm the pastor of the first united methodist church, fishing with me today is monsignor james doyle, and bishop bruce. let us pray. eternal god we praise you for the great company of all those who have finished their course in faith and now rest from their labor. today, we remember eleanor terry and steve mcgovern. we praise you for those dear to us whom we named in our hearts before you. and especially we praise you for george mcgovern. whom you have graciously received into your presence.

oh, god, grant a short piece. let your perpetual light shine on all of us. and help us believe where we have not seen that your presence may lead us through our years and bring us at last within into the joy of your home not made with hands but eternal in the heavens. through jesus christ our lord we pray. amen. ♪ ♪wwwwwwwww

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ooooooo ♪ ♪oooooooooo ♪ ♪oooooooo

♪ ♪oooooo o ♪ ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ [applause]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ >> brothers and sisters family and friends of senator mcgovern, holy scripture tells us, there's a season for everything. the time for every matter under

heaven, time to be born and a time to die time to weep and a time to laugh. time to mourn, and a time to dance. george stanley mcgovern was born over 90 years ago and now he has died. we weep over the loss of this marvelous man. and yet we laugh because he has not finished his final stage of growth in dying. we mourn his departure and yet we dance as we remember the legacy that he left behind, our states our country our world is better because of the

footprints that he has left behind. soon after his first election to congress i was given my first assignment as a young priest, freshly minted from lengthy seminary training. we both started in mitchell. that was 55 years ago and our friendship has grown ever since. the last few years by sheer luck, we wound up in the same neighborhood, and shared time almost daily when he wasn't at his winter residence in florida. often, he mentioned his ambition to be to live to be 100. he said, it's in my genes. once when i did remind him when

he said this, and i reminded him of the story of a roar the goddess of dawn in greek technology. who sought permission from zeus, the chief god to mary -- to marry the son of the king of troy. 's is not gave his permission trend one to marry a mortal man, but granted her anyone wish she might ask for as a wedding gift. she immediately responded oh zeus, i would ask that this only as would never die. zeus agreed. tran one had many happy years

together. but while tran one as all the gods never aged began growing forgetful and wrinkled, feeble and zeus was quite miffed when tran one came back to him and begged him to do something so that the chief god changed the felony is into cicada a well-known insect in the midwest. sometime later but not too long ago, with his strength fading and his memory becoming more porous, the senator said to me one day, you know, jim i think

those greeks might have been on to something. [laughter] perhaps that is why george said right here on this stage exactly 20 days ago, when he was hoping the orchestra and they were doing this wonderful performance performance, he said i keep looking for old friends who have passed on to the world beyond. and i have no idea what's out there. but somehow i feel it's going to be okay. for everything, there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven. to each of you here today, i

want to tell you that your presence is a treasured gift to all members of the mcgovern family. i want to say to you in the name of the family and closest friends, thank you. thank you for coming to this memorial service, from near and from far. the city states, a national reaction to the senator's demise hasn't simply stunned everyone -- has simply stunned everyone. why has his death so highlighted across the whole nation, and, indeed, throughout the world. in radio television and newsprint journalism.

for some it has to be his leadership on feeding the hungry the corporal works of mercy, of our one world family, so that millions of children have not starved or died or become retarded, because of proper nourishment, and because of the efforts of this man. others loved him for proving to america that you don't have to be a hawk in order to be a good patriot of our beloved country. and, still others may have been charmed life is amiable man.

william f. buckley was as conservatives as senator mcgovern was progressive. and yet, when his son christopher, asked him what he thought of george mcgovern, william f. buckley said, he was a single nicest human being i have ever met. buckley sun printed that answer in his book called mom and pop. he wrote after both of them had died. and here in south dakota, political historians from both universities that i was affiliated with have claimed that george mcgovern almost single-handedly brought his

party out of a long slumber, and it became a state of bipartisan again. so rest in peace dear friend. the world is better because you passed our way. and we are all worse without you. and because most of us believe in christ's resurrection proves that love is stronger than death. with that firm belief we say goodbye, george. but not forever. but just for now. and till we meet again in a better world. may god the father who created

you, god the son, who redeemed you, and god, the holy spirit, who sanctified be yours this day. and you live in his company for ever amen. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> this is psalm 121. i left of my eyes to the hills and where will my help come? my help comes from the lord who made heaven from earth. he will not let your foot be moved. he who keeps you will not slumber. he who keeps israel will neither slumber nor sleep. the lord is your keeper. the lord is your shade at your right hand. the son shall not strike you by day nor the moon by night. the lord will keep you from all

evil. he will keep your life. the lord will keep your going out and are coming in, from this time on and forever more. this is a reading from isaiah chapter 40. had you not known? have you not heard? the lord is the everlasting god the creator of the ends of the earth. he does not faint or grow weary. his understanding is unsearchable. he gives power to the faint and strengthens the powerless. the young will be fall exhausted come by those who wait for the lord shall renew their strength. they shall mount up with wings like eagles. they shall run and not be weary. they shall walk and not faint.

>> i'm congressman jim mcgovern from massachusetts. when eleanor roosevelt lied at least evenson said, i lost more than a friend. i lost an inspiration. that's the way i feel today. deep down i know george mcgovern is in a better place. he is with eleanor with gary and steve. who knows, he may even be president? [laughter] [applause] >> but for so many of us it is difficult to say goodbye. it was was comforting to know he was around, reminding us we could do better, making it seem possible that we could end all wars eliminate hunger eliminate poverty, create a world where of all gods children

are respected, valued and love. in 1972, as a seventh grade in massachusetts, i did what it could to elect the president of the united states. i will remind you all he did when massachusetts. [laughter] [applause] >> i was later and entered in his senate office, and i had the privilege to work with the incredible staff that he assembled, both in washington, d.c. and south dakota. some of the finest people that i've ever known. we weren't related. it was just a coincidence that we both had the same last name. the people would often tell me that they were and longtime supporters of my dad. [laughter] and they always seemed a little shocked when i told him that my dad owns a liquor store in worchester, massachusetts,. [laughter] i urged them to keep supporting him.

[laughter] for 35 years i have been honored to call senator mcgovern my most greatest friend, and i love him very very much. george mcgovern was a great man, but more important he was a very mr. goodwin. he had about him a kind of bedrock decency. he was generous and kind. he was funny. he lacks pretension and had no patience for cynicism. he was passionate and principled but not dogmatic or self-righteous. he had enormous courage. he loved his family and friends. he loved his faith. he loved american history newfoundland dogs and a good state. he loved this great state of south dakota. and my god did he love his country. even after the 1972 campaign even after losing 49 states, even after losing his senate seat in 1980 he maintained his optimism, his faith in democratic government, his belief in that america's best days were always ahead. through intellect and drive an

education he became a war hero a ph.d a congressman a senator, ambassador and a presidential nominee of his party. but he wasn't a don't you know who i am type of guy. we can all hear from now on that slow precise cadence saying to someone who knew perfectly well who he was you know fred, i ran for president fred in 1972 against richard nixon. which is not to say that he was without pride. this is a man who jumped out of an airplane at age 88 for pete's sake. while he did so to raise awareness on the issue of childhood hunger, i think he also wanted to prove that the old pilot the dakota queens still had a little bit of that fearless fly boy in him. he had a way with words come home, america. don't throw away your conscious. he was eloquent and moving, but his actions were even more powerful. there were millions and millions all around the world who were being fed who are not starving to death who have hope because

of george mcgovern's actions. perhaps because he witnessed firsthand the horrors of war because he knew his cause, he was a tireless champion for peace. not because he blindly oppose all wars, but because he knew that war always represents a failure of human imagination. even when some have the audacity to question this war hero's patriotism he refused to accept all men dreaming up new wars for young men to die and. to all the grandchildren, thank you for sharing him with us even though i know it wasn't always easy because there are millions of us all across the country who consider ourselves george mcgovern's children. is incredible public services also your public service and we will forever be grateful. to the people of south dakota thank you for giving our nation and the world this incredible public servant. as his colleague said late in the 1972 campaign, he wanted a

mcgovern presidency quote because george is such an ordinary man. i don't mean ordinary in a negative sense but the presidency was designed for ordinary men not for a succession of so many larger-than-life men on horseback. if george mcgovern were president he wouldn't stand for cia or an fbi pushing people around the way they do know. or the pentagon building and buying what it please. he wouldn't stand for price-fixing or these outrages against people who work for wages and pay their taxes. you can be damn sure he wouldn't try to prove his manhood by prolonging a war that shouldn't have started in the first place. it's a damn shame all this happened to george, because i don't know how long it will be until we have a president who feels like that. he was right. our great country missed an incredible opportunity in 1972. [applause] >> but even though george mcgovern lost that election that loss is not his legacy.

right now there's a family in camden, new jersey, they can put food on the table. that's his legacy. there's a little girl who must never heard the name george mcgovern who has enough to feed and is getting an education. that's his legacy. there's a young man in california or columbia or kenya committed to peace and justice because of his inspiration. that's his legacy. and it is up to us to each and every one of us to carry that legacy forward. we love you, senator. [applause] >> i am gary hart of colorado. [applause] nations even great nations

sometimes require a voice of conscious. george mcgovern was the voice of conscious for our nation in our time. the voice of conscious began as far back as intent -- ancient israel with its profits calling the people of israel back to their purpose and back to their cause. in america george mcgovern stood in the tradition of henry david thoreau of william jennings bryan, and more recently, of robert kennedy and of martin luther king. when the wounded veteran in vietnam needed a voice, george mcgovern was there. when a hungry child in america's poverty needed a voice, he was there. when women minorities, and young people sought to break down the barriers of a closed

political system his voice was there. when sinister forces corrupted the political system and haunted the corridors of power in washington, he was there to warn us. voices of conscience make us uncomfortable. our political system forces them to the margin. those made uncomfortable by george mcgovern's voice of conscience dismissed him as a liberal in an age which ridicules liberalism. but he was larger than any political label particularly a demonized one. liberals did not get elected and reelected in conservative midwestern states. liberals did not throughout their life take on unpopular causes particularly in recent years.

and most of all liberals did not fly dangerous bomber missions in defense of our nation. this made his many critics who avoided military service especially uncomfortable. somewhere in some small town in this great land is a young man or a young woman who will learn of george mcgovern and his voice. someday, that young man or woman, drawn to action by his life as a voice of conscience will rise up to call america home, to summon "the better angels of our nature," to confront us with poverty, injustice and inequality, and to challenge us to live up to our constitutional promise. george mcgovern's voice is not

going. it is simply waiting new voices of conscience that have the courage of their conviction. [applause] >> good afternoon. my name is karen one. i'm susan -- my name is karen one. i am george his son-in-law. and i was his baseball pal. he asked me any number of times to say a few words at his here

whenever that would happen about his lifelong love affair with the st. louis cardinals, which i'm going to do today. george's father was born in 1868, so he was an older man when george any other children came along and he was rather apparently a rather stern minister go figure, not the kind of man who would toss a baseball around with the boys out in the front yard. one day when george was at one of his father's revival, tent revival meetings george and his brother were talking of baseball to each other, and their father said, let me see that baseball. and they thought they were in trouble. because their dad not -- their dad did not encourage them to participate in sports. and they were stunned when her

father took the baseball and threw it on a straight line to the corner of the tent and hit a mouse. [laughter] it was apparently a transformative experience. [laughter] and that's when the reverend joseph mcgovern who at that time, was either 65 or 66 told the boys that in an earlier life he had been a professional baseball player. on the team in des moines, iowa that had an affiliation with the st. louis cardinals slightly prior to the formation of the cardinals formal minor league system. george had always loved the cardinals and listen to them on the radio but now we had a much more personal connection the whole notion of the st. louis cardinals. and i asked him one day, what

was it like to be able of 12 or 13 and learn that your dad had been a professional baseball player? and he thought about it for a minute and he said well not every boy in mitchell had a father who was a professional baseball player. [laughter] george followed the cardinals if i may say so here religiously and he had a habit that's not unknown to a lot of us, but give the newspaper in the morning and he would turn it over and he would read it to front looking for the box scores and he would read the cardinals box score. he would absorb all the statistical data and often if a game had been on television or an important game, he would call our house and talk to susan first, and then susan would say here, he wants to talk to you about the game.

we had a lot of wonderful conversations on the phone especially last year, when the cardinals managed to sneak into the playoffs and win the world series. several years ago, susan and i were in marco island, florida. george and eleanor have bought a house there, and we went there in the late winter. marco island is on the west coast, on the gulf coast, and one day george said, another friend had come up with tickets to a st. louis cardinals spring training game, when i'd like to go with him? i said sure. so we set out to drive to the east coast of florida, the other side of the state, to where the cardinals played their spring training games.

we got what family members will now ask the typical late mcgovern departure. [laughter] and there's a whole separate story of a getting it again, which i will not explain in great detail. i would just say it for a newspaper story, the headline would have the words late, on time and 100 miles an hour in the same headline. [laughter] we had a wonderful time at the game. we sat in the sun. we got sunburned. the cardinals won. there was a close play at second base where the second baseman got knocked over, and george's dad had been a second baseman. ..

and actually the atlanta braves coach, and anyway we got up to the outfield wall, walked through the door and into a room, a little concrete bunker almost and there was tony larusso and he got up and he was gracious and he greeted us and we sat around and talked cardinal baseball for half an hour. we mostly listened but george told his story about his father which tony of course had never

heard, and he was just a wonderful moment. george is sitting there with the st. louis cardinals cap on and we were listening as tony told us about what was going to happen the rest of the year. and on the way back to marco island, about every 15 minutes george would say, can you believe that? we just met tony larusso. [laughter] when you think we have met the president or the pope and george knew that. [laughter] but he got to meet tony la russa and this was really a wonderful moment for him and they became sort of telephone friends. george would call after a cardinals lost and he would say you know when you call the cardinals you ask for tony la russa which puts you right through. [laughter] anyway, the last few weeks, you

know, george ended up in the hospice. the cardinals ended up in the playoffs again and we would go in you know and by that time at the hospice he was his eyes were closed and he was comatose but we could talk to him and we believed he could hear us. matthew or i would go in and depending on how the game was going and we would say well the cardinals are ahead and the cardinals are doing well. you could see palpably that his heart rate was up and it was almost as if he wanted to talk to us about how good he felt that the cardinals were winning. as you know, they didn't make it to the world series this year and they did a rally and unfortunately george didn't either. i feel there was just some final connection there with george and the cardinals.

they both just sort of ran out of steam, but it was a great, it was a great privilege to talk baseball with george. he was a real fan and i guess we were real fans of his too, so thank you. [applause] [applause] >> ann and susan, i am deeply honored to be here today and to have the opportunity to share some thoughts. i join congressman mcgovern and senator hart and all of those assembled here and all of

the thousands who wish they could he hear to express our heartfelt condolence and deep sympathy to you and the extended family. i know i speak for the family and in expressing our gratitude and deep appreciation to all of those very distinguished visitors, who in some cases have traveled great distances to be here on this celebration of george's life. when george accepted his party's nomination he offered this benediction. may god grant to each of us the wisdom to cherish this good land and meet the great challenge that beckons us all home. now that he is back and home, we

will always be grateful for the ways that george's life through his work in through his vision george lifted us far higher in meeting that challenge. someone asked st. frances of assisi what it takes to live a good life. he replied, preach the gospel every day. if necessary, use words. i have never known anybody who preached the gospel more effectively in so many ways then george. a peacemaker a humanitarian a teacher, a minister, a

congressman, a senator, a voice for the voiceless and a champion for hungry children. in some ways it's an irony that george's adult life began in war. when asked about his military service he would always minimize his heroism. but the fact is that if he had done nothing after reaching the age of 25 years old today we would be celebrating the life of an american hero. 35 missions in the b-24 and a scott heideman said so well last night, even a lot more had the war gone on. a lot more than one close call.

shrapnel penetrating the windshield at one point, nearly killing him, a blonde wheel, an emergency landing and on his 35th and final mission, so much fire and flak that when he landed they cut the hole in his fuselage and wings and numbered 110. george's life was not an easy one. he saw more than his share of hardship and loss. he fight many battles beyond the ones in the airplane. the hits he sustained in world war ii were easier to see, but in truth he was riddled like that inside much of his life.

but it was true his incredible sense of humor, his determination to soldier on and to set the example for others as he shrugged over the tragic loss of terry he once observed. you get so you can live with it that's all. george outlived two children, taken too soon, terry and steve. and his beloved eleanor. in light of all that, there's a certain blessing in knowing that he left us as he did peacefully, with family and friends around. i don't know about you, but i love the thought of george and

eleanor, terry and steve are all together now. throughout his life, as we all know, he had a love for mitchell. mitchell was his home. it's where he studied at dakota wesleyan, to build his library when he chose to return home and to continue all of his productive work in his last several years. and in many ways, it's all where it started. george and eleanor had four small children, and he decided in 1955 to resign as chairman of the history department at dakota wesleyan and build the democratic party. their friends agreed that there could only be one explanation for this decision.

he was out of his mind. [laughter] george insisted that there was another explanation. he said he had a desire to work in public service and to be part of both the world of ideas and the field of action. the hallmark of his career was his drive to bridge the gap between those worlds, to turn ideas into action, and aspirations into reality. his early years are the stuff now of legend and lore. years crisscrossing the state of south dakota, shaking hands collecting hands on 3x5 index cards. to this day i think -- [inaudible] but who can forget the classic

story in his autobiography grassroots. and you know which one i'm talking about. he was at the state fair. i stood on the wet cold sod instead -- in front of a dismally small campy road. there was no floor and i had no literature. no coffee, no elected officials. what's more, the gop had a live elephant in the tense. [laughter] by the democrats stop by and offer george the use of his donkey. [laughter] george jumped at the chance. drove 14 miles in his chevy, a car, not a pickup, and there was the first fatal, multiple disaster.

by the end of the day, the donkey had sent a look through the chevy window, bled all over the car, relieved himself on a nunn. and pulled the poll of the tense down. [laughter] i have never trusted donkey sense, george wrote. [laughter] they deserve to be called. [applause] and it wasn't until i was in a majority leader that i fully realize the value of that statement. [laughter] he soon created an organization that enabled him to beach the

biggest vote getter in the state in 1956. and when his seat in congress becoming the first democrat to be sent to washington from south dakota in 22 years. and he immediately became a force to be reckoned with introducing a farm bill the very first day. over the course of several months pass more legislation than any one of the 44 new members who had come in with him at the same time. his constituents were the people for whom he fought. they were south dakota families, barely holding onto their family farms. they were common working people in south dakota and all over the country. they were native americans.

they were poor people, hungry people people others often overlooked. and then it was just as remarkable that in 1962, south dakota sent him to washington as the first democrat elected to the senate in 26 years. if george mcgovern had never entered politics, he might still have impacted thousands of people like me. most likely has a distinguished history professor but i doubt that i would would have ever been elected to congress. growing up in south dakota, the idea of getting elected as a democrat seemed as likely as martians landing in your yard.

[laughter] it just didn't happen. but because of what george had done, that changed. the fact that he won both his house and his senate seat, expanded the hopes and aspirations of hundreds of would-be democratic candidates just like me but even more with what he did with those seats. that affected us the most deeply. what he did. in 1972 i was an intelligence officer in the air force in omaha. my day job was analyzing intelligence data on the soviet union, but i had another volunteer job in the evening, helping to run the mcgovern for president primary office in omaha. it was certainly an unusual combination and i think i had the shortest haircut of anybody

around. [laughter] but what attracted me was not only that this man was from my state, what attracted me was his intellect. his integrity, his passion for the things in which he believed and his courage to speak out on them, and his enormous decency. i liked what someone wrote about him and his mitchell high school yearbook. for a debater he is a nice kid. [laughter] but for a politician, he would be extraordinary. i well remember my first lesson in political leadership from george mcgovern. thanks to jim i had the opportunity to work in jim's campaign and go to washington and then jim let me come back

here in 1976. to get around and to know people. it was 1977, i hadn't yet announced -- it was at the state fair. the country was consumed and a raging debate about the panama canal treaties. as we were walking down the fairway, if very angry crowd encircled george demanding that he explain his position on those treaties and change it. and that they would work hard to defeat him in the next election and they didn't. george stood there and listened to them quietly. when it was his time to talk in

a most recent come and articulate way, he shared with that group why those treaties were not only good for panama but what they meant for us. the crowd dissipated and as we walked back to the democratic booth, i remarked to george. i said george, i can't help but note the contrast between that angry crowd and what you just did. he said, i have learned a long time ago that it's a whole lot better to tell people what you believe from here than to tell them what you think they want to hear.

[applause] george set the standard for candor conviction and for honesty. from 1978 to 1980 i had the opportunity to serve in the same delegation with george and south dakota and although he was the most senior, and i've the most junior, he treated me as an equal, and i can't begin to tell you the lessons i learned in watching this man. mostly by his example lessons. i only wish people in washington could better understand today. like the fact that you can express your convictions deeply without ranting. and you can disagree without without being disagreeable.

he showed me that politics can be an honorable profession. you make sacrifices in politics. sometimes big sacrifices. but you don't sacrifice your idealism or your conscience. people sometimes talk about mcgovern is him. some even use it as a pejorative but mcgovern is him means believing in basic american values democracy, justice, the dignity of honest work tolerance and never hesitate to

read raise those values even when they are not popular. his courage, combined with common sense is recognizing our responsible -- responsibility to face harder questions like the shame of hunger in the world, for the reality of ill-advised wars in vietnam or iraq. mcgovernism, these believing that government has certain basic responsibilities by guaranteeing civil rights and searching for ways to live peacefully in the world. it means choosing dialogue over blame respect over division hope over fear.

what made george a great public servant was not only his compassion and his integrity but it was his uncommon vision. he saw connections others did not see. like the connection between little civility and hungry children. that vision became good for peace and a mcgovern dole international food education program. he also saw things sooner than others. in 1962 he said the most important issue of our time is the establishment of conditions for world peace. nine months into his first term, he gave his first speech on vietnam. in 1970, he warned about the dependence of the united states on fossil fuels and in 1984 he

urged all of our american leadership to understand the complexity, the challenges and the volatility of circumstances in the middle east. i believe america will be a better place had george become president of the united states. [applause] that doesn't mean his campaign was a failure, far from it. the 1972 campaign opened up the political process that infused a new generation with a belief in what eleanor called the politics of the impossible. it was that kind of politics

that george current enormous respect across the aisle and transcended partisan lines. and along with it enormous enormous achievement. there are children today and jim mcgovern mentioned it there are children today in the world, living and you have better lives because of what george and bob dole did together. [applause] on the surface george mcgovern and i should be poles apart senator dold once said. after all he is a liberal democrat and i'm a republican of the conservative stripe. he ran for president when i was chairman of the party. i suspect our voting records are

diametrically opposed. yet, in the most important ways he said, i regard george as a close friend and kindred spirit. he is a decent man who puts principle above expediency. another man who served with him in the 60's and was a close friend simply said, george mcgovern is the most decent man in the united states senate. [applause] that was robert kennedy, who spoke two months before he was killed. it's well-known among his friends that george loved to drive. last night, matthews spoke so powerfully and eloquently about

his experiences with his grandfather, including a drive to mitchell. june told me this great story about traveling from florida to south dakota through wisconsin last summer with george over nine days. i had my own experiences with george, driving over the years in south dakota. i will never forget one night it was the summer, starry beautiful night. george and i were coming back to mitchell having been to some program, driving to sioux falls. he was driving. we were going around 90 miles an hour and he was looking out the windshield saying look at all those great stars and he was pointing them out one by one just how beautiful they were. my eyes were frozen on the road and i said george, look at the road. [laughter] metaphorically, and actually, george plowed down the road.

his eyes focused on something beautiful and something distant. in a speech at wheaton college in illinois less than a month before the 72 election, he told his audience, i felt called to work to serving others. at first i thought my location was in ministry and i enrolled in the seminary. after a period of deep reflection i thought i should become a teacher. yet, even in my teacher at dakota wesleyan i thought there was something else for me to do and that led me to politics. he went on in that speech to say that we know the kingdom of god will not from a party platform.

we also know he said, if someone who is hungry, we give him food. if someone is thirsty, we give him drink. if someone is a stranger, we take him in. if he is naked, we clothe him. if he is sick, we take care of him. and if he is in prison, we visit him. that encapsulates simply and powerfully the story of george mcgovern's years on this earth. he and i had many favorite poets and writers. one of our favorites was yates and we both loved one of gates

lines. think of where my glory begins and ends. my glory is that i have such friends. our glory, our glory is that we had a friend named george mcgovern. [applause] [applause] >> i am matt mcgovern and i'm going to read from the gospel of matthew. when the son of man comes in his

glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his lorry. all the nations will be gathered before him and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats and he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at his left. then the king will say to those at his right hand come and be blessed by my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. for i was hungry and you gave me food. i was thirsty, and you gave me something to drink. i was a stranger and you welcomed me. i was naked and you gave me clothing. i was sick, and you take care of me. i was imprisoned and you visited me. then the righteous will answer him, lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food or thirsty and gave you something to drink? and when was it that we sell you a stranger and welcomed you or naked and gave you clothing?

and when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you? the king will answer them, truly i tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it for me. then he will say to those at his left hand, you that are cursed depart into eternal fire and prepare for the devil and his angels. was hungry and you gave me no food. i was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. i was a stranger and you did not welcome me. naked, and you did not give me clothing. sick and imprisoned and he did not visit me. then they also will answer lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and did not take care of you? then he will answer them truly i tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me and these will go away into

eternal punishment but the righteous and eternal life. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

[applause] >> in i and mary mclaughlin. i i am george's granddaughter and this is the reading from the gospel according to luke. that jesus filled with the power of the spirit returned to galilee and report about him to spread throughout the surrounding countries. he began to teach in synagogues and was praised by everyone. when he came to nazareth where he had been brought up he went to the synagogue on the sabbath day as was his custom. he stood up to read. the scroll of the profit isaiah was given 10. he unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written. the spirit of the lord is upon me because he has anointed me to

bring good news to the poor. he has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free. to proclaim the year of the lord's favor and he rolled up his scrolling gave it back to the attendant and sat down. the eyes of all of the synagogue were fixed on him. then he began to say to them, today the scratcher has been fulfilled in your journey. all thought well of him and were amazed at the gracious words that came from his mouth. they said, is not this joseph's son? he said to them, doubtless, you will quote to me his progress. doctor, cure yourselves and you will say also in your hometown the things that we have heard you did back the print on and you said, truly i tell you no profit is accepted in a prophet's hometown but the truth is there were many widows in israel at the time of elijah for the heaven was shut out for three years in six months and

there was a severe famine over all the land. get elijah was sent to none of them except to a widow in saigon. there were also many lepers in israel at the time of the profit elijah but none of them was friends except the syria and. when they heard this, although the synagogue was filled with rage. they got up drove them out of the town and laid him to the hill on which their town was built so they might throw him off the cliff. >> i greet you in the name and spirit of christ, the same christ who promised i will come again and take it to myself so that where i am, there you may be also. i am the bishop of the dakotas minnesota area of the united methodist church and it is my

honor to participate in this service and to have been asked by the family to preach the gospel. i think george would have wanted the last word of this marvelous celebration of his life to be the preaching of the gospel. south dakota has lost one of its beloved sons of the prairie. nation has lost one of its true heroes and patriots in an unwavering clarity and voice repeats justice, compassion and decency. the world community has lost a champion and friend of the poor and hungry. the people of faith have lost a mature disciple of the gospel of jesus christ and the follower of the methodist way of life, to do no harm, to do good and to stay in love with god. the mcgovern family has lost a beloved father grandfather great-grandfather, uncle, cousin and in law.

we extend to you our deepest sympathy and our pledge to hold you in our prayers as you move through the season of sorrow. you have embraced and endured with remarkable dignity and charity a public season of grace so thank you again for sharing george with a generation that also grieves with you. on behalf of a profoundly grateful united methodist church, who proudly claims george stanley mcgovern as a son and an example of our wesleyan heritage of personal holiness and social holiness, i thank each of you for coming today to celebrate and honor senator mcgovern's life and witness. i thank you for coming today to share the mcgovern family's grief. i thank you for coming today to say goodbye to a dear friend, a

political colleague, a trusted mentor. [inaudible] the geography and culture of the prairie formed him as it has many of us to embrace the common person and to tirelessly work for the common good. george mcgovern was also a prophet. he spent an entire generation including me to do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with our god. he focused the world's attention on the plight of the hungry.

hawarden against evil and 54 piece. he called us to repent a misguided, wasteful and selfless -- selfish decision and turned back to seeking and speaking the truth. george mcgovern and braced as his own mission, the mission of jesus, articulated in his hometown synagogue in nazareth to preach good news to the poor and proclaim release to the prisoners and recovering of sight to the blind to proclaim the year of the lord's favor. this story from the fourth chapter of luke's gospel is instructive regarding the role of the hometown prophet. we can learn much from jesus experience of calling the people to embrace the mission of bringing good news to the poor and liberating the oppressed. as jesus began his ministry of teaching and preaching in galilee he got rave reviews.

he was filled with the holy spirit. he was praised by everyone. his preaching was over the top. he hit it out of the park. in his hometown of nazareth that people were lovingly expectantly fixed on jesus as he read from the profit isaiah. yet come home to share his personal mission statement with his hometown congregation and he declared the spirit of the lord is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. this was jesus and not girl address. all spoke well of him and can't you just hear they're delighted and proud expression? isn't that joseph's son, you know, joseph and mary's kid? it's good to have him back home. he reads so well and he says things we like to hear. you know he has done all right by himself. he created quite a stir with his work. we know this guy. he is okay.

in today's vernacular jesus was a smash, a hit a rock star. but then things went terribly wrong very quick way. jesus just told a couple of stories to illustrate what he read from the profit isaiah and all of a sudden all of the synagogues are filled were filled with rage and they drove him out of town and try to throw him off a cliff to kill him. that is an incredible reaction to a sermon, a reaction i hope will not need -- today. this was one of their own. one of their favorite sons and jesus preaching went from outstanding to outlandish to outrageous in just a few minutes. what happened here? quite frankly, jesus picked a fight. he picked a righteous fight. jesus took up the tradition the words from the profit isaiah which they all knew in which they all loved and which they felt were their own and he reinterpreted the tradition in a way that ultimately infuriated

the congregation. jesus picked a righteous fight. now, i have a hunch that we all have had the experience of picking fights. anybody feel like confessing today? [laughter] we all know how to pick a fight. if i asked you to pick a fight with the person sitting next to you this afternoon, would you like to try that right away? you know you would know exactly what to do. you would probably tack your sense of security or a sense of being art in control or their sense of that -- identity and that is what jesus did with his hometown crowd. the day of the lord is here and amen they shouted. he went on to say all who are waiting for deliverance is over. they shouted the lord is coming again and again they shouted amen and at last the lord is coming to redeem his own.

but then jesus attached their sense of well-being, their sense of being in control of god's word, their sense of god's predictability in their lives. jesus reminds them of the story from their history which they had conveniently forgotten. during a time of drought in israel when there were lots of poor and hungry people, god said to profit elijah not just the people of israel, but to a widow woman, a foreigner an immigrant. imagine that. in effect, jesus was saying do you remember that story? and the hometown crowd grew silent. and then as if to rub it in jesus reminds them of the story when many in israel had leprosy and god said the profit elijah, to heal a syrian army officer another outsider another foreigner, an occupier rather than all those poor, deserving

lepers in israel and in the silence of the hometown crowd thunders into rage. it is the rage of being judged by god's word and a rage revealed with an exciting new sermon suddenly becomes recognized as an old story that we already know and we wish we could forget. friends, let's be honest this afternoon. we don't much like to be reminded of what we know is the truth. that which we know is just. that which we know god requires of us but that is the role of the profit isn't it and that is what senator mcgovern did for our country. in his humble plain talking, but profoundly courageous way he time and time again in light and dust by word and deed what

god requires of us. the people of nazareth who first greeted jesus when a man find a yelled kill him because he painfully reminded him of what they already knew, namely that god is free, i live, gracious beyond the bounds of our willingness to accept. the worshipers at nazareth knew that god had a syrian officer through a elijah and they knew god bless the undeserving widow but it was a lot more than they wanted to remember and they certainly did not come to church to be reminded that god refused to play by their rules before and might well refuse to play by their rules again. don't you hate that? i hate that, when god doesn't play by my rules. by the way i want things to go. but dear friends, this is the key to preaching and living the gospel with integrity. it is remembering that god does

not play by our rules. god in christ is always turning things upside down. god in christ is always healing the nation's. god in christ is always siding with the poor. god in christ is always buzzing the peacemakers. god in christ is always giving birth to a future. god and christ is always turning nobody's into somebody's. senator mcgovern played by god's rules. he sought the heart of god and he lived by god's rules of justice, peace, compassion and love. the problem the people of of nazareth had was not the jesus picked a righteous fight. their problem was not between the old and the new, the conservatives and the progressives between change and tradition. the problem was between the people of god and their own members. profits often cut so deeply not because they predict the future or tell us what we don't know

profits like mica isaiah elijah, jeremiah and jesus and what we are doing now all too well and turn out on us. when they do there is a moment of dead silence when their smug satisfaction of this hearing their gracious words turns to the shock silent recognition of having been confronted by god's truth and justice. the profit has stood up and preached our sermon, the one we know by heart that we are not afraid to speak afraid to hear and afraid to live. often people will say to me after i have preached probably other preachers here today have heard the same thing. you are preaching to me today. and i have started to respond by saying no, i must have preached for you today.

all i did was to call forth and remind you of what you already know. you are ready know you are to be peacemakers. you already know you are to feed the hungry. you already know know you are to clothing make it. yorty now you are to protect the children. yorty now your to eliminate hiv/aids. you are ready now you are to house the homeless. you already know you are to welcome the immigrant. you already know you were not to kill that which god has created. you already know you are to do no home. you already know you are to do the good you can. you already know. senator mcgovern did not come preaching something new. he came proclaiming something we already know. something we already knew. the 1972 speech at the

jefferson-jackson day dinner in detroit, senator mcgovern echoing the theme of his democratic presidential nomination speech and in fact his entire presidential campaign challenged us and you have heard this before, to come home. to come home to the ideals that nourished us from the beginning. he challenged a divided interesting nation to embrace the truth we already knew. 40 years later his words seem as applicable and prophetic as they did now and they want to quote from this speech. what is needed is a revitalization of the american center based on the enduring ideals of the republic. the present is drifting so far from our founding ideals that it bears little resemblance to the dependable values of the declaration of independence and the constitution.

i want america to come home from the alien worlds of power politics militarism deception, racism and special privilege to the blunt truth that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights and among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. i want this nation senator mcgovern continued, i want this nation -- we all love to turn away from cursing and hatred and war to the blessings of hope and brotherhood and love. let us choose life. lets us choose life that we and our children may live and our children will love america and not simply because it is theirs but because of the grace and the good land all of us together have made it end of quote. and perhaps one of the most

courageous acts of speaking truth to power, we will ever witness, senator mcgovern took to the senate floor in 1971 and declared to his colleagues and the nation this chamber reeks of blood. as he demanded once again and to the war in vietnam. and the profit was not accepted in his hometown. because he told us what we already knew. others had preached to us but one senator mcgovern preached for us, for an entire generation, it awakened the nation's hopes but also its rage. friends, you may be surprised to

hear a bishop or any religious leaders say this, but here it is. you already know all you need to know about religion. if you have been going to church or synagogue or mosque or one year or 10 years or 25 years or 50 years waiting to know enough about god so you can swing into action i'm telling you that you already know enough. and you know deep in your heart that you know enough. you know what to do. jesus reminds us with every story, every parable, every teaching come every commandment we are to bring good news to the poor. we are to bring relief to the captors and let the oppressed go free and proclaim the year of the lord's favor. we are to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and we are to visit the sick and those in prison. i wonder, don't you? i wonder how many people in our great country are drowning in loneliness, hurtheard, sin

doubt and despair or are unemployed and do not have health care or quality education while we who know what to do don't respond. [applause] [applause] just like jesus hometown synagogue and nazareth, every one of us every one of us of every faith tradition stands judged by our own familiar stories of faith and transformation, by what we already know of god's saving, healing, reconciling message. democrats, you already know what to do. republicans, you already know what to do. followers of christ, you already know what to do. each of us here this afternoon will be judged by what we already know. god wants us to do.

don't take my word for it. read jesus teaching about the judgment of the nations in matthew 25. here is the good news. some of you wondered if i would ever get to the good news didn't you? here is the good news. we do know what to do, don't we? we know the story of god's grace. we know that forgiveness, healing and joy that are ours. we know that god is unpredictable, uncontrollable and unstoppable. we know that god's grace does not reserve just for a us sitting here this afternoon. knowing is not our problem. let us not fall silent. let us not to kill or sideline our contemporary prophets. let us be and do what we know.

let us pick a righteous fight. let us remind the people of this great country what they know deep down. let us remind the people of this country what is truth, what is right, what is peaceloving, what is just. dear friends of senator george mcgovern, do you desire to honor his legacy? is that a rhetorical question? do you desire to honor his legacy? then go forth today and engage in the fight for justice and righteousness. keep picking the righteous fights. you know what to do. keep up the faithful witness.

the world needs your leadership and the name and spirit of jesus. go get them. [laughter] sign her up. [applause] in 1962, pope john xxiii said to george mcgovern, then the director of food for peace, you have seen this quote many times. the pope said, when you meet your maker and he asks, have you fed the hungry, give a drink to the thirsty and cared for the lonely you george, can answer yes. ..

>> and so we as a gathered community of faith and, indeed, the grateful nation, join in saying well done, george. well done good and faithful servant of the lord. you knew what to do. and you did it. we release you now. we release you now to god's ever lasting arms. rest in peace.

may be so. amen. [applause] ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> let us pray. almighty god, into your hands we commend your son george stanley mcgovern, insurance of resurrection through jesus christ our lord to eternal.com you've shared with us the life of george mcgovern. before he was ours he was yours. for all that george has given us to make us what we are for that of him which lives and grows in each of us, and for his life and in love your love we will never in. we give you thanks. as we offer george back into your arms covered us in our loneliness, strengthen us in our weakness and yet this courage to face the future unafraid. draw those of us remain in this life closer to one another. make is faithful to serve one

another. and give to us to know that peace and joy which is eternal life, through jesus christ our lord. when asked by his disciple how do we pray he said pray like this. our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. the kingdom come,, thy will be done upon earth as it is in heaven. give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses. as we forgive those who trespass against us. and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. amen. and now may the god of peace who brought back from the dead our lord jesus and he raised george down in the government

into his eternal and everlasting arms make you complete in everything good and just, so that you may do his will so the mako force and do what you already know to do. so that you may do what is pleasing in god's sight. through jesus christ to whom the glory for ever and ever. amen. >> here's what's ahead here on c-span2. coming up next from fordham university law school, a forum on government secrecy. the first penalties with secrecy and classified information. then will have more from that event with a panel on government secrecy and transparency. later we will wrap up that it was a discussion on government secrecy and national security issues. and a live look at the u.s. capitol where hurricanes and he

has shut down the federal government for the day. and most schools are closed through tomorrow. several of our events have already been canceled. we will keep you up-to-date with any theme announcements. -- theme announcement. hurricanes an historic trip in the final weeks of the presidential campaign but it has not stopped some of events in the crucial swing state of ohio. we will be live at 11:50 a.m. eastern as mitt romney campaigns. you can watch that on our companion network c-span. vice president biden is also in ohio today stumping for reelection. is expected to be joined by former president bill clinton and you can watch that light at 3:30 p.m. eastern also on c-span c-span. >> you consider that a while ago no one whatever agreed to carry around a tracking device, right? but now we all carry around cell phones. no one would ever have posted, let anyone read her e-mail but right now a lot of us our gmail

is stored on a server at google. it's interesting that we as a society have given our information out. >> we were looking into cyber incident security, type of war. the pentagon had declared cyberspace the environment of people and machines and networks as a new domain of war. and yet we realized that maybe one in 1000 people really understood what cyberspace was and the degree and depth of the vulnerabilities. and so what we're trying to do in zero days series is to take pieces of it and explain the fundamental and the platonic idea is that everybody from my mom and dad to congress and people around the country can understand and so maybe start the process of coming up with ways to defend cyberspace better

spent cyberspace vulnerabilities tonight at 8 p.m. issued on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs. week days feature live coverage of the u.s. senate. on weeknights watch key public policy event. and every week in the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our schedules at our website. you can join in the conversation on social media sites. >> recently, fordham law school in new york city held a daylong conference focusing on the balance between government secrecy, transparency and public access to information. this portion of the conference includes remarks by security and legal officials, including u.s. attorney for the eastern district of virginia, neil mcbride. the former u.s. district court judge for the district of columbia, florida and so on national security host this event. it's about an hour and 10 minutes.

>> okay, so let's get started. thank you all for being here so early. and i want to thank other people before we get started. first, i want to thank susan for taking the lion's share of the burden on this conference and putting it together, and her dedicated staff of interns, fellows, fellow travelers anybody else she could find a helper. helper. so thank you very much, susan. i want to thank chase are sponsoring this event. i want to thank the bullet foundation for also providing some support. and i want to thank the friends of the center that contribute to

all of our public events. and for all of you in the audience who support is with your gifts it's really made it a huge difference for us and allow us to do all of our public events. so let me turn to what we're going to do today which is to look at a topic that many of us looked at together for years ago, and that is secrecy and national security, and how it functions within a government and how our government functions, given the tension between secrecy and transparency. and really of acid i just want to raise a few questions and then let the panel is, the first panel and the rest of the panels talked about this. and then i will moderate the discussion at the end that sort of rounds things out and talks about where we should go from here. but there's a lot of things in the secrecy and transparency conflict, or debate, that people don't talk about. and those are the things i want

to talk about today and that our panelists are prepared to talk about. it's not just about the one-liners, should the government be allowed to keep secrets, and what kind of secrets? and his national security catchall for more than it should be? and it's not just about how much transparency the public should demand. we live in an age where as you know information is more and more accessible than it's ever been before. and we live in an age in which information is classified, and more classified than we are told it has ever been before. what is the upshot of that? that's what we're going to talk about today. what does it mean in terms of the public's trust in the government? what does it mean in terms of the government's desire to tell a story and not be able to tell a story? what does it mean if you can keep a secret, whatever that may be, for your accountability? how much does it make you not think about how it's going, how

it will appear in public, whether it's an issue of predator drone strikes, or an issue of potential terrorism attacks, or anything else or an issue of a cyberthreat. these are the kind of issues that the american public does not have clarity on and does not understand the nuances of. it is not a he said/she said. one of the things that's most significant about this is that when you get into a situation in this area as in other areas of national security, if you don't know the facts it's hard to have the debate. so what we've done here today is to organize ourselves are little different with the done in the past. as those of you have come to the many conferences i've held no, you should what you see on panels is a heightened is a heightened dialogue which doesn't avoid conflict. in which there is debate within each and every panel. today is different. today we are looking at we are

allowing each panel to stake out a certain amount of ground about the government and about the public. and then at the end we'll sort of see what kind of mental space we can come to. the reason we're doing this conference is that this is one of the things that i think the american public needs to be paying attention to and a way that they're not paying attention to. there's so much going on. the headlines are so much about who is being killed and where al qaeda is and what the threats are and what the cyber threats that face us are. but there are general philosophical deeply important issues that we think need to think about, whether we are thinking about the mythology of secrecy as senator moynihan described it or the the smell of secrecy as others have described. it's time we take a look take a look awfully without any kind of distrust in one another, and really think through these issues. whether you and the press,

whether you're in the public, or whether you're into government. so without further adieu i'm going to turn to our panel. you have everybody's biased but we're not going to make long introduction of anybody today. the moderator for first panel who was introduced this bill is andrew kent, professor law -- professor leblang here at fordham university. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. i'd like to introduce our first panel, starting tonight immediately left and neil mcbride, united states attorney for the eastern district of virginia. appointed by president obama previously served as the associate deputy attorney general in the department of justice and several other senior government roles. moving to niels left we have kenneth wainstein, former homeland security adviser to president bush prior to the assistant attorney general for national security in the department of justice. and innocent surgery for the district of columbia. then run out our panel, my far

left, the honorable james robertson, retired as you know states district judge for the district of columbia, appointed by president clinton in 1994 answered for him on time on the foreign intelligence surveillance court. thank you very much all three of you for coming. we'll start with each panelists, making some remarks and then we'll move on to questions. neil. >> karen, thank you for putting this panel together and thank you for inviting me. i've been involved with karen and this organization or its predecessors since 2005, and it's now one of the most fun things i do beyond my day job is get to be in discussion with many of you around the room a number of old friends and great to meet some new friends here as well. let me just throw out a couple of first principles regarding secrecy, classified information

and then make a couple observations about leak cases of which my district currently has several underway. first, a point of agreement i think for everybody on this panel, i assume everybody in this room is the importance of a free press and the need to avoid interference with its appropriate functioning. the cpa belief is a core pillar in our democracy and one that helps ensures the transparency and accountability by government. a second first principle is that however vital the need for an informed public may be it's also true that disclosure of certain highly classified sensitive national defense information may be restricted on national security grounds. us both the supreme court as well as the courts of appeal

which covers my district in virginia have said the government has a compelling interest in protecting the secrecy of information critical to our national security, and that the right to free speech and the valley of an informed citizenry is not absolute, and must yield to the government legitimate efforts to protect the nation's security. as the fourth circuit said an u.s. versus morrison, the seminal case in my district in the fourth circuit, they said quote public security can thus be compromised in two ways. might attempt to choke off the information needed for democracy to function, and by leaks that into the environment of physical security which a function democracy requires. or as judge ellis, district judge in the eastern district judge in eastern district of virginia wrote a couple years ago in the aipac case he wrote that the defense first amendment challenge to the espionage statute expose the inherent tension between government transparency so central to democratic society on the one

hand and the government equally compelling need to protect from disclosure information that could be used by those who wish to do this nation harm. and so the tension between these two principles, these first principles i will call them come is not one that won't necessarily be resolve this morning i mentioned and because it does inform the justice department views leaks of national defense information, and our response to any investigations that we managed to take. let me quickly throw out for propositions regarding leak cases and investigations. first, as you probably all know there is no general leaks statute in the united states, that sometimes a surprise to folks. and so the justice department relies on a federal law that is almost 100 years old. it borrows the leaking of national defense information or in the eye a term of art used in the statute regard to basic

provision that come into play. within title 18 section 794 793, section 794, you may know is a classic or espionage statute that covers release of sensitive information to foreign governments, foreign citizens, punishable by up to life in prison. that is a stroke of the statute my district used to prosecute pure cold war spies like robert hansen or aldrich james. a second provision, 793 section 793, is kind of everything else. it's punishable only by 10 years in prison and it prohibits the disclosure of national defense information to any third party not entitled to receive it. second, the justice department focuses on the most serious leaks of national defense information. not every leak is created equal and many leaks may involve sensitive information, even classified information but not

information that's defined as national defense information. as the fourth circuit row the espionage act has no applicability to the multitude of leaks that pose no conceivable threat to national security, but struggling to ebbers one or another high government official. as somebody once called the remark, in truth beauty only publishes two doj only publishes one or two needles in the league a stack if you in a given period of time. and congress has afforded very robust whistleblower protection for those come including folks who work for the military or intelligence agencies. and so, our focus is on the most serious of those leaks. third, leak cases are tough to make. fourth circuit wrote that quote, violations under the espionage act are difficult to prove and

therefore, relatively rare. violations under the act of not easily established. the violators i with the intention of conceding their conduct. they try to leave few trails. moreover, any prosecution under the act will in every case post difficult problems of balancing the need for prosecution, on the one hand and the possible damage that public trial will require by way of additional disclosure of vital national secrets in a public trial, closed quote. on the first book leak investigations from the department standpoint focus on the leaker and not the leaky. and it's often very difficult to find out who the source of the leak is, particularly when multiple individuals may have access to that information. the second point, the fourth circuit was made with sort of a catch-22 of how much change you want to incur as a government disclosing additional secrets to show a damaging the leak secret was.

or as bruce wise who was one of the defense counsel in the aipac case wrote a couple years ago in the "washington post" he said the central question is is the intelligence community willing to spend $1000 to save 100? that is an issue that comes up in these cases frequently. finally, doj is always mindful of the first amendment implications in these leak cases. and as a recognition as is at the outset of the importance of the freedom of the press and it's our policy that are prosecutorial power should not be used in a way in a way which impairs a reporters responsibility to cover as broadly as possible controversial public issues. that said it's the department do that for 40 years, the supreme court has held clearly that is not a reporters privilege, which allows reporters to avoid testifying in response to a grand jury or a trial subpoena

issued in good faith in a criminal case. and the courts have consistently upheld the espionage act, both 794 and 793 sections against that only government leakers who sign a disclosure -- nondisclosure agreements but against third parties who receive that information and then disseminate it further. and even in the aipac case in my district, judge allows rogue recording that the government can punish those outside of government for the unauthorized receipt and deliberate retransmission of information relating to national defense. that said, i think everybody knows that justice department over four years has never charged a media organization with the unauthorized publication of national defense information. so, those are just a couple of first principles and several

observations about the statute and how it works, kind of the real world from across diverse perspective. thank you. >> thank you. >> i also want to say thank you to karen and all the foreign folks are putting this on. this is a nice event, and always happy to purchase but with this crew. a very spirited discussion but not always agree but that's the way it ought to be. i think you always learn about these when you come to these events, and karen does a great job. sort of full disclosure neil is the current government guy. i'm kind of a fake government got into since i'm not in government but i think about this issue as though i still was, still were in government because that sort of how i come at the issue. so you going to hear, i'm going to tackle some of what neil says, though i look at this from a number of different perspectives. just first i think this is a fascinating topic as neil said, there's a tension here and there

is no better, no way of highlighting the tension between transparency and national security and effectiveness, and looking at this issue the issue of leaks, the issue of governments ability to maintain confidentiality in security operations. i think anybody who has been in government recognizes that the transparency and the scrutiny that is brought by media is a good thing. obviously, it helps to ferret out abuse and fraud and criminal conduct, but also as a government official, when you know that the press is looking at you, it helps keep you on your game. you think think a little deeper about issues. just because you know that someone is watching, someone will be scrutinizing what you do, and that's a very good thing. so when i look at when and how to prosecute these cases the government has to think about every step they take is this in anyway going to chill the presses legitimate effort to

keep an eye what the government is doing, because that's a fundamental basis of our democracy. i think when you look at where the press is today, there's been a lot of talk about how there's a record number of leaked prosecution. i think it's hard to say that our press is in any way diminished in its ability and its eagerness, and it's enthusiasm scrutinizing government operation. look at the front pages and juicy probing analysis of what the government is doing. you see disclosure of government missteps and misconduct. and so from my perspective i don't see that the government, press based on some aggressive prosecutions by this administration has been anyway chilled from its legitimate efforts to root out misconduct or ineffectiveness in government the power that is to do what neil said. that the department of justice does not have a track record

going after reporters. they have never prosecuted a media organization. never prosecuted a reporter and rarely actually compels reporters to turn over names of their sources. i think there've only been two to three dozen or so subpoenas issued over the years to reporters to find information about their sources of information classified information they disclose in their media stories. and i think that restraint that nihilist thought not as something that often gets lost in this discussion. another thing that often gets lost or is minimized is the damage that is caused by leaks. and this gets to the fact that karen talked about, trying to pull out today. i think it's important we step back and think what is it the government is worried about when they say we shouldn't have leaks. is a just preventing impressment? is it just preventing the airing of dirty laundry? and it's not. that i did that there are different types of leaks.

there are leaks with embarrassing stories that cannot in the press, public officials don't want other. we saw some of them in the wikileaks disclosure. we saw embarrassing language and embarrassing stories that got us through some of those diplomatic cables. that's not the stuff we're talking about. let me go through the types of damage that leaks can cause in any of us have been a national security arena, and john rizzo i think would elaborate on this today, know and feel the impact of these types of damage have. first, the image, leaks can damage your operations. i think that's pretty straightforward. if there's disclosure of our troop movements, like a barely there wasn't some of the wikileaks disclosure, that's something our enemies and are ambitious can use against us. there was disclosure five years ago of a very responsibly run and for ineffective program going after terrorist finances and the treasury department called the swift program. once that got out, that really diminish our ability to track the financing of terrorists. that's serious damage to operation.

damage to our sources. much has been made over the last 10, 11 years about the need to have human human intelligence. human intelligence is intelligence officials going out and developing sources. human beings are going to get inside the organization of your adversary and tell you what they are doing. we allow that after the fall of the berlin wall and after 9/11 we didn't have any clear insight into what our adversaries were doing because we didn't have the human intelligence. a government i think it's a good job over the last 12 years in doing that and that's what the reason why we're seeing a number of these terrorists get taken off the battlefield in a pretty impressive rate. because we have people inside that are telling us who they are and what they're doing. whenever one of the sources is disclosed, that not only compromises that source, but that undermines the governments ability to develop sources in the future because you're only going to cultivate sources if those potential sources feel like they can trust you and keep

their identity secret. so like the other day when we heard about the saudi source being in the middle of that airline bombing plot out of, the saudi source in the middle of the plot that tipped off our adversaries as to who that was. that was a bad thing that only for the source, that's a bad thing for our souls -- source cultivation program in the future. the third a compromises government personnel but as john will tell you from his own memory back in the late '70s as a chief of station in athens was out of public and he ended up getting killed. forth, it can compromise methods. no better example i think than the disclosure in 1942 i think it was by the "chicago tribune" of the fact that the u.s. and allies i guess a broken the japanese code. for surely the japanese didn't pick up on even though it was in print, and so they didn't take any action to change their code. but that could've been could

have been disastrous if it had been picked a. at a classic example of a method that gets disclosed, that our adversaries could use to adapt their operations. and the last of the damage i'd like to cite is coming this is something people don't get or don't recognize often is the damage that leaks caused to our allies. in any national security operation, [inaudible] we are only as effective as her international alliance is. how well we work with yuki, how well we work with the pakistanis, how will we work with any country that shares her interest in combating terrorism. whenever a phone surveys seize the name of the source whether it is their source or our source to delete or that source of information to believe, that undermines that trust in us and undermines alliance. that can be devastating to our operations. so there are different, a number different types of damage or

different areas of damage that leaks can cause. i did it come as a earlier there are different types of leaks. some were suspended. i also get there different types of leakers. you have the aims and hansen the folks who betray their country for money or they become person ally with of the country. that's sort of the classics by to give people who like to tell secrets because it makes them feel important because they like the attention. they like to be in the know. and you also have people who leak because they see that there's misconduct or ineffectiveness of fraud or something like that in government. they want to expose it for very out of a reason to go to explode -- whistleblowers. different types of liquor to pass that last category that's the most difficult one. the whistleblower. what do you do with that person was really motivated for all the right reasons? and that we do have something in place to do with that which is the whistleblower, said

whistleblower statutes that are in place to say that a person who has that kind of information, feels that needs to get out, doesn't need to go to the press to get those concerns aired out the and coach to an intra- process and for the intelligence community to take that information on the hill so it can be taken. so in other words, you can stay within classified secure just but it can still get to people outside the organization that they employ has concerns about. that's an area that is perfect to them is that process is perfected vendors were no argument they need to go to the press. but that's still an area where work is needed to make the whistleblower complaint process user-friendly and make absolute sure that when someone has a concern that they raise that they have no concern, they should have no concern they will be retaliated against by anyone raising those concerns. i know congress is looking at that right now. so the upshot of this is there's a serious damage caused by leaks, and there's an

alternative to leaking which is going through the channels set up by the whistleblower statute. so i take from that that therefore there are certain cases where someone goes ahead and leaks, classified information, it doesn't have to go through those channels, that in certain circumstances if there's sufficient damage and sufficiently malicious intent, that there should be prosecutions. and the question is is that going to kill the press? and i say come back full circle to my first point, i said no it won't undo the press and we haven't seen that, and there's a couple of reasons why. first is that this is what neil alluded to, that the justice department has shown restraint and there's a number of reasons for. one is then they recognize that this is a delicate area, and that you shouldn't go rushing headlong into prosecution. but also as neil said, these are

very difficult cases and i as assistant attorney general for national security, and i dealt with it. they are very difficult cases -- cases to put on technical and can you be surprised family people usually are into these very center programs, so when it is disclosed or a many people whom i was to know because that makes it very difficult to identify the leaker in the first place. secondly, as neil said that there are strict procedures in place that you got to go through within the department of justice, the attorney general before you can even subpoena, or much less indict somebody. 30 is another think neil alluded to which is oftentimes if you're kind of sponsor you think the prosecutors and for leaking cia information you get a call as a different genres general counsel of the cia saying you know appreciate what you're try to do i appreciate the need to deter leakers by prosecution, but if you go forward with this prosecution its are going to highlight information that was leaked.

so it gets even more broadly disseminated, and it's going to require disclosure of further information. it's not worth it. so often the government will just back down from prosecutions that a very righteous and well-founded because of the concern about disclosing even more information. then, of course, the last reason that these cases are few and far between is that the end up facing for a strong challenges in court. they get the best defense attorneys, challenge the classification of the victory that was leaked and they are very difficult case. and that's why the aipac case ended up getting dismissed. so reasons why think we don't see this is chilling to people are concerned about, at least not to the degree they should be worried about, difficult cases and also the government, the department restraint it has shown as neil said, not once has the government actually prosecuted the press, the leaky and the leaker case. the wikileaks cases of the. we can speak about that with

hunter.so in conclusion, in a post 9/11 world where there's just a lot of national secure the operational, there are a lot of nation is a good operations going on all of the world there's been intensity through our operation. is in need for confidentiality and the need to keep secrets. there's also a need to strike that balance, and the balance between transparency and secrecy. and the government struck it is certainly, and i think it's important we keep sort of scrutinizing that balance, to see is calibrated right. that's what i think these kind of forums are good. they are a good way to scrutinize that balance and make sure that the government is on the right path. thanks. >> thank you. judge. >> i too thank for him and karen for this conference, and for asking me.

i was a little surprised to be invited into i realized that there aren't any judges who will talk because they are still on the bench. but since i'm not on the bench any longer people think i will reveal all. neil mcbride and ken wainstein are two of the most dedicated and distinguished prosecutors i've ever run across. and by the way i've run across both of them in washington. and i have no problem with what they are doing, but their presentation is about prosecution of leakers, and the importance of prosecuting leakers take the existence of classified information as a given, and in some sense beg the question of one of the questions about this conference this conference will address which is why do we classify stuff and how much do we classify and why do we need to classify it, and is it really

secret? nobody disputes the proposition that governments have to keep something secret. but what things and for how long, and that what costs? by which i mean not just dollars dollars, to maintain our impossibly complex security system, and it really is impossibly complex, but costs in terms of public understanding, participation and trust in government. i am not an expert in the field. my experience is, i think of myself as a cog in the elaborate years of government secrecy. and in that capacity i've encountered a lot of it. i mean my first encounter with it was when i was a lieutenant in the office of naval intelligence. i was working for doing an administrative job while going to night law school. and the admiral decided that he

wanted me to be a briefer in flight plot which was really a big deal. i would get about 3:00 in the morning and we don't intelligence reports and go brief the admirals. and once i would brief in the white house but i needed a very special clearance for the. and i said admiral, forget it. i have a swedish wife. [laughter] he said, that won't be a problem. in the next day i was cleared. so it all came down to my need to know, his need to have me know it's a very flexible complex -- whether i needed when i could be cleared or not. now on the bench had to deal with classified information procedures act, otherwise known as cipa, which is a public aided set of procedures for the government has to deal with. if it wants if it's dealing

with a case that involves classified information. i had to deal with employment cases in which someone has been fired because, or somebody's security somebody's been fired because his or her security clearance has been taken away. and judges struggle with the question about about whether whether and to what extent a judge is anything to say about security cleared his. answer no judge had nothing to say about security cleared his. i served as a time on the court, the court that decides whether not to issue warrants for electronic surveillance and basically in terrorism cases. and what i learned there, i think i can say this without disclosing anything i shouldn't

disclose them is that most of what appears in these highly classified top secret documents that i reviewed on a regular basis is totally banal. there is a very, there's so little of what is classified that really, that the man in the street would you think needs to be classified, but it is classified because the way the classification people think, if you disclose ask then that's going to lead on to y and that will lead on tuesday and someone will put it all together. and the people who work in classification of documents have a way of thinking that is almost talmudic in his complexity. think about guantánamo bay. the lawyers who represent defendants in guantánamo bay have to sign undertakings to

keep everything secret. and they are not permitted they must avert their eyes and not read things at a public but have been classified at some point. and the lawyers are hamstrung. they can't read there's all kind of stuffs they can't read that everybody else knows. they can't talk to the comments about what the clients have said, because that's classified the record of what the clients have said is classified. everybody is tied in knots down in guantánamo, dealing with these, dealing with the security issues. and folks, the judges really don't have anything to say about it. is all a matter of executive decision about what's classified and what's not classified.

this country has what i would call a serious addiction problem with security. this book and i am indebted to karen, this book was published after went on the bench but of course, i never read anything after went on the page so i didn't know about this. this is daniel patrick moynihan's book on secrecy. this is required reading for anybody who's interested in in the big picture of secrecy and what moynihan called the pathology of secrecy. he traces the explosion of secrecy culture in this country really to the atom bomb and to the cold war. and come it existed long before the end he traces the whole history of the. but it exploded with atom bomb and the cold war. and has become, as ken pointed out, pathological. moynihan says secrecy is for losers.

and he paints lots of pictures but one of the most interesting ones is the bay of pigs. the bay of pigs fiasco in which kennedy and his people relied on intelligence reports rather than what was public. because intelligence reports were more secret that was public. and what was public was all kinds of information that the cuban population would absolutely resist this invasion. and moynihan postulates that a better been taken into consideration, the bay of pigs invasion never would've happened and the embarrassment that we suffered because of it never would've happened. karen mentioned the information explosion in recent times. facebook and twitter and how really nothing can be secret anymore, and there's a whole body of the population, 80 half

of them are here who believe is sort of a religious first principle that information is free and must be free. and information must, must know no bounds. welcome the world is kind of behaving that way, and the notion that we can bottle some of it up and secure some of it is at odds with everything that is going on in the internet and in cyberspace today. we are going to have to deal with it. i don't have the answer. i don't think the answer is another commission. i know that. and maybe, maybe what's going to happen is that the information age is going to overtake the notion of security, just make everything transparent anyway. but i myself am concerned about the amount the banality and

the costs of security, of secure information that we tried to bottle up in this country. if we tried i think if we tried tried, if we try to enact a statute that said we're going to go through and clean it all up and declassify what needs to be dead -- because i i think it would create a lot of jobs. i think it would create a lot just by thank you very much too expensive and take much too long. we've got we're just drowning in secure information, and classified information. these guys are doing their best and i give them all the credit in the world for prosecuting the people who leaked it but some of what this league is banal and some of it is seriously damaging to national security. and who's going to decide which is which? i don't know. i don't know the answer to that

question. i hope this conference will help decide it. >> thank you very much. picking up on the judge's comments about overclassification and questions about motives and incentives within the executive branch, and also ken's apology of different types of leaders, the whistleblower, best buy, the big talker, i was when it we might talk a bit about an additional type of leader that we might call the authorize illegal or perhaps authorize leaker. and maybe get your reactions to the role that leaks and secrecy play in an area like the drone program, you know, vitally important national security programs of the training, one that is in large part classified. there's a felt need to talk about some of it through some types of leaks but other parts of the secret. i'm wondering, both the

prosecutorial and from the policymaking executive branch perspective, how do you manage striking a balance between transparency and secrecy in an area like that? >> fine, i'll go first. well, let me first return to government to judge robertson. ken and i were in d.c. back in the day, and judge robertson was one of the giants on the bench and is careful never to quarrel with him when i edited for and i shan't quarrel with him now. you know i think the judge made a point that again i think would probably be a point of agreement amongst various constituencies who come together in conversation about the issues we're talking about this morning but i think the administration's going back some number of years have talked about overclassification of

information. there have been various proposals, the hill for the executive branch to address that. and as i referred to earlier, in the fourth circuit in the morrison case talks about how vast multitude of leaks which occur to them at a ticket they were referring to what you describe, as the authorized the leak, that many of those would not meet the statutory elements to be prosecuted under the espionage act. there are leaks of classified information that occur i suppose whether authorized or unauthorized that a prosecutor or the fbi in investigating could will conclude this does not constitute a subset of the most important of the nation's secrets and, therefore, there might be the cia you know, through john rizzo or the

general counsel or the inspector general's and intelligence community might bring some administrative action against leaking of information. but a lot of those cases that would not arise to the level of a criminal investigation let alone a criminal prosecution. and so i think that i think that's what do i think of the in instances where there has been you know, there have been stories that have appeared in the papers that appear to talk about sense of government programs, and investigations have been ordered into those without commenting on whose source leaked was. i think that's what the whole

purpose is, was there a leak and who leaked it. and so you know, these investigations take time and some of the cases that we have our cases that where the alleged leak occurred. some years ago. they take time. there's a reason they take time. ken alluded to some of those points. >> you mentioned the authorize leaker and i think that brings up an interesting point. there's different ways of looking at that issue. that is shipping this classified information are classified program and then there's public discussion about that ossified program at a high level of the government. i think that's as it should be. the government has the authority to classify something that the government also has the authority to declassify something. the decision is made it's important for the government, the people do have some insight into this program. and i'm assuming that as the

drone program that calculation was made. and so, therefore, we're going to go ahead and disclose something about it. i remember that debate going on before we put forward legislation to reform the foreign intelligence surveillance act, a statute that allows the government to go get authorization to do national security wiretaps. we knew done well once we engage in the legislative process hearings, question for the record at all a kind of stuff, some information that our flight operations was going to get as close to it would probably be hurt us. the disclosure would hurt their but we made the decision that we needed to do that. we went into hearings and disclose a lot about the programs had not been disclosed before. that was a type of decision. that's just the way it ought to operate. the question though, i think the harder question is what happens when somebody at the upper levels of government or an agency says i'm going to go

ahead and release something classify because it's going to help our positions in the press can always go to help us or help me to get something out there. well, maybe that person is authorized to do that but when you do it for that reason and what message does that send to the people lower down in the organization who are concerned they're going to be prosecuted for maybe leaking something because they are whistleblowers. that raises the question whether it's double standard. that's a very sure is concerned, if anything, neil and his colleagues at justice department have to know that they want, they want to make sure the government that people have confidence that there's integrity in there, the application of the leak laws. there is proceeded double standard where the upper level folks are able to leak things just for the own benefit, and a lower level people will get prosecuted for doing the same thing. that undermines credibility of the enforcement program. >> i have absolutely no idea to

do what this question to be taking a position on whether there is a double standard or not, but certainly a lot of people think that there is. i'm wondering, is there anything that could be done bureaucratically within department of justice, say, or perhaps even by the courts to try to minimize the perception of that to increase the perceived legitimacy of those prosecutions that to take place? in one area where there's arguably a lot of violations by very few prosecutions with corporate criminal wrongdoing, the department of justice put out very, very detailed guidelines publicly discussing and weighing all the many different factors that he would look at in deciding whether to initiate an investigation or prosecution. i mean, are there other steps like that that could be taken to address the concerns that some people have about the double standard problem? >> i don't think the courts are going to be of much help to you.

i don't think motive or authorization or the dispute about whether something is really classified or not will have any, will have any effect in the defense of one of these cases. these cases demonstrate if anybody needs a demonstration, of how important prosecutorial discretion is. because once the decision is made to prosecute, the court is confronted with the statute, the facts, and the court really has the court doesn't say well, you intended well, or oh that was a really very important classified information, or oh maybe somebody give him authorization to leak it. that just won't come into a court case. >> i think, i just two comments. i think that, you know, as ken

said, the number of leaked prosecutions have been undertaken in the last several years is really you know, i think there have been five prosecutions, five charges involving, five different cases involving allegations of leaks of classified information are doing the same time period, there were probably 300,000 criminal cases brought by the justice department. and so, a half a dozen cases against the backdrop of 300000 charges, i think points to the fact that it is, it is done very sparingly. and ken alluded to the fact that there are lots of reasons that come and visit to really in any area of criminal law but particularly to i think a national security leak cases where there may be any number of reasons why a case that

otherwise would appear meritorious to the investigators ultimately may not be brought. and at the end of the day the justice department essentially we rely on referrals from the intelligence community are the agency is the equity holder of the secrets, and absent a call from the general counsel at the cia saying this is a case that i know is very significant and we would like the national security division to open up an investigation. we typically take our lead from the intelligence agencies which are making those referrals. we don't sort of go out on our own there. and for classified information procedures act or see but which both ken and judge robertson referred to was designed to deal with the so-called gray mail issue of having to dine out a whole lot more secrets in order to prove the significance

of the once secret that actually was leaked. but it as somebody once remarked cipa is kind of like a force of the government to play a chess match before the opponent has even showed up to sit down across the table from them. in other words, you need a kind of think through and make your best predicted gas as to how a judge, how we judge robertson is going to make rulings with respect to what classified information comes in what classified information comes out. and so the government, the prosecutors give our best assessment the cia or whoever the equity holder is of the secret, and then a decision is made. and if a case goes forward its charged, a judge may end up making rulings. ..